3 ms·

I know you're being glib, I just wish everyone would calm down about communism and capitalism. They're both useful but flawed ideologies and if there's one thi

by edrxty 3y ago

I know you're being glib, I just wish everyone would calm down about communism and capitalism. They're both useful but flawed ideologies and if there's one thing that the last century should have taught us, humans are not good at instituting either extreme. What we do have evidence to suggest is that taking the useful parts of both seems to work well. From an historical point of view, we know what we need to do, we just get wrapped up in ideological wars. Regulate markets up to, but not past, the point where they're not winner take all, companies aren't hurting workers and we're not destroying the environment. Provide social safety nets, healthcare, and tax preparation so small businesses can focus on building useful things instead of spending all their time with overhead tasks and individuals can take risks without fear of destitution. Finally, and most importantly, heavily tax the 0.1% and get rid of corporate influence in public policy so we don't end up going back to....this.

3seashells 3y ago
[flagged]
- edrxty 3y ago
  I think I know what you mean but I'm still very confused.
PixyMisa 3y ago
Communism is not a "useful but flawed" ideology. Communism is deliberate fraud. Read Marx on the Labour Theory of Value, and watch as he twists the definitions of words until he hits upon the desired outcome. And all of socialism is built about that lie.
- edrxty 3y ago
  > If you don't work, you don't eat. Oh no....
- thiagoharry 3y ago
  You probably would also call Adam Smith, Ricardo and all classic economists a fraud? Labour Theory of Value is at the core of classical economy, all these authors assumed the theory, Marx did not create it. Marx theory built on top of it, and solved several paradoxes known in the theory at the time.
- dragonwriter 3y ago
  > Read Marx on the Labour Theory of Value, and watch as he twists the definitions of words until he hits upon the desired outcome. Yeah, any attempt to ground a normative proposition in objective fact is inherently flawed. But the is/ought distinction and its impact in that regard, while written about at the time Marx wrote, was far from as widely accepted as it would later become at the time (and people of all ideologies still have problems with it today.) But that doesn't prove Communism is a "deliberate fraud", or even a flawed ideology; at most it proves that Marx's writings on Communism make a fundamental error that mistakes it for an objective scientific fact when it is, in fact, an ideology (the two being in separate domains, but the attempts at constructing objective supports for ideological positions, both backward from an ideology that was assumed to be correct and forward from perceived facts were a systemic misguided pursuit of the philosophy that hadn't really dropped off all that much by the early 19th century.) > And all of socialism is built about that lie. No, its not. Socialism is much older than the Marx and the LTV, the LTV was part of an attempt to scientifically ground socialist ideology, as part of a wider systematicization of the ideology.
b0in 3y ago
Was life ever like this? and if so, is it a failure of that life that it devolved into... this? and if not, how would you get there? These are facetious, here is my point: You're drowning in ideology while decrying ideological wars because you have decided the way things should be, outlined that this would be a shared vision of all (if only they were as clear-headed as you), that this way would never ever devolve, and provide no path for getting there and hope no one asks. it's magical realism!
- edrxty 3y ago
  Yes and no (I know, way to narrow it down). On one hand, yeah, that aligns with a vaguely socialist ideology and maybe some other stuff. It has some of my biases in it, particularly in terms of what our current problems actually are (a secular lack of fiscal equality), and that's very much up for debate. There are a lot of social and racial issues that also contribute to our problems, but... On the other hand, this is the blueprint for the nations that currently have the lowest inequality and highest social mobility. Yeah, this reflects ideology, but at some point we have to actually pick something and picking something that's currently working isn't particularly ideological. Just because it happens to align with ideologies doesn't mean it's ideologically driven. Literally any solution will align with some random ideology.
  - b0in 3y ago
    I appreciate your followup but this ideology isn't random alignment. it's just a kinder, softer version of the dominant ideology. how do you think the 0.1% of a given "good" country gets all that money to tax? from resource and wealth extraction from the "poor" countries! Even presuming we should have a 0.1% to tax (instead of treating them like the french aristocracy, for example) is an ideological position. It's capitalism. Fwiw, these were my biases too and then I think I just got jaded that you can't stay here. Ignoring the first world / western chauvinism at play, we could get there but i think even these "nice" countries are all going to backslide if, idk, we run out of computer chips, the global extraction economy fully shifts to China, or the IMF decides to punish them like they did Greece.

by edrxty 3y ago

3seashells 3y ago

[flagged]

edrxty 3y ago
I think I know what you mean but I'm still very confused.

PixyMisa 3y ago

Communism is not a "useful but flawed" ideology. Communism is deliberate fraud. Read Marx on the Labour Theory of Value, and watch as he twists the definitions of words until he hits upon the desired outcome. And all of socialism is built about that lie.

edrxty 3y ago
> If you don't work, you don't eat. Oh no....
thiagoharry 3y ago
You probably would also call Adam Smith, Ricardo and all classic economists a fraud? Labour Theory of Value is at the core of classical economy, all these authors assumed the theory, Marx did not create it. Marx theory built on top of it, and solved several paradoxes known in the theory at the time.
dragonwriter 3y ago
> Read Marx on the Labour Theory of Value, and watch as he twists the definitions of words until he hits upon the desired outcome. Yeah, any attempt to ground a normative proposition in objective fact is inherently flawed. But the is/ought distinction and its impact in that regard, while written about at the time Marx wrote, was far from as widely accepted as it would later become at the time (and people of all ideologies still have problems with it today.) But that doesn't prove Communism is a "deliberate fraud", or even a flawed ideology; at most it proves that Marx's writings on Communism make a fundamental error that mistakes it for an objective scientific fact when it is, in fact, an ideology (the two being in separate domains, but the attempts at constructing objective supports for ideological positions, both backward from an ideology that was assumed to be correct and forward from perceived facts were a systemic misguided pursuit of the philosophy that hadn't really dropped off all that much by the early 19th century.) > And all of socialism is built about that lie. No, its not. Socialism is much older than the Marx and the LTV, the LTV was part of an attempt to scientifically ground socialist ideology, as part of a wider systematicization of the ideology.

b0in 3y ago

Was life ever like this? and if so, is it a failure of that life that it devolved into... this? and if not, how would you get there? These are facetious, here is my point: You're drowning in ideology while decrying ideological wars because you have decided the way things should be, outlined that this would be a shared vision of all (if only they were as clear-headed as you), that this way would never ever devolve, and provide no path for getting there and hope no one asks. it's magical realism!

edrxty 3y ago
Yes and no (I know, way to narrow it down). On one hand, yeah, that aligns with a vaguely socialist ideology and maybe some other stuff. It has some of my biases in it, particularly in terms of what our current problems actually are (a secular lack of fiscal equality), and that's very much up for debate. There are a lot of social and racial issues that also contribute to our problems, but... On the other hand, this is the blueprint for the nations that currently have the lowest inequality and highest social mobility. Yeah, this reflects ideology, but at some point we have to actually pick something and picking something that's currently working isn't particularly ideological. Just because it happens to align with ideologies doesn't mean it's ideologically driven. Literally any solution will align with some random ideology.
- b0in 3y ago
  I appreciate your followup but this ideology isn't random alignment. it's just a kinder, softer version of the dominant ideology. how do you think the 0.1% of a given "good" country gets all that money to tax? from resource and wealth extraction from the "poor" countries! Even presuming we should have a 0.1% to tax (instead of treating them like the french aristocracy, for example) is an ideological position. It's capitalism. Fwiw, these were my biases too and then I think I just got jaded that you can't stay here. Ignoring the first world / western chauvinism at play, we could get there but i think even these "nice" countries are all going to backslide if, idk, we run out of computer chips, the global extraction economy fully shifts to China, or the IMF decides to punish them like they did Greece.